At least Burnham shows more progressive thoughts and feelings (and has actually defended trans persons).
Burnham, a Catholic, carries a documented history as a vocal LGBTQ+ ally — one he's said cost him relationships inside his own family. He marched against Section 28 as a student in 1988, before he held any office worth protecting. From 2003 he voted almost wholesale for queer rights: repealing Section 28, civil partnerships, marriage equality, IVF access for lesbian couples. As mayor he hired a man the RAF had dumped for being gay, and last year formally apologized for how Greater Manchester Police treated queer people.
It turns out, however, that he's rejected some of those positions with respect to trans people (per the article Erin linked to).
For the US it's of somewhat "academic" interest, but the reason academics are interested in something is for the underlying driving force. I suspect that this piece is right on target: just as the slogan ("trans rights are human rights") goes, waffling on trans rights is waffling on human rights, and soon one has neither.
The constituency that really wants to vote for the Democrats (or Labour, or any other relatively left-leaning party) because of their support for other progressive policies but refuses to do so solely because of their stance on trans rights consists of ... J.K. Rowling, and that's pretty much it. A few TERFs here and there, maybe some transphobes estranged from their own family. A slice of the electorate too small to measure.
Anyone who votes for cruelty to trans people is also voting for cruelty to all queer people, to women, to immigrants, to the disabled, to non-Whites and non-Christians. And I think, either deep down or out in the open, they know this and are okay with it.
And the way a smart party opposes that is to quietly support trans people (or whatever other minority is under attack) while focusing on economic issues and demonstrating the fundamental unseriousness of the opposition.
There were many factors behind Starmer's resignation, including that he used nefarious methods to come into power. He was critiqued for moving Labour to the right and made life more difficult for many, not just trans people. The pattern of scapegoating groups with less political power is unfortunately common =/
The british people really did get a government with little to no difference from the conservatives before them; they had hoped to loose austerity, to end ridiculous anti social campaigning to distract people. And what they got was more of the same.
This is a very good breakdown of this aspect of it all. An important and wasily overlooked one for those not directly impacted.
I hope the anti trans positions from rhe UK aren't the only things that US politicians are taking note of. I hope they note that it hs utterly failed to being either party popularity.
A follow-up comment: Activists who attack the Catholic Church for its sluggishness on queer issues should remember how hostile Protestant cultures have been to gender innovators throughout history. England is rooted in the Protestant-Puritanical fanaticism of the 16th-17the centuries, with their hostility to the body, to pleasure, and to elegant forms of art and self-representation (e.g. fashion).
As Max Weber observed, these attitudes jibe with Protestantism’s most fateful offspring: capitalism. Capitalism couldn’t thrive if people were busy spending time trying to satisfy their inner yearnings rather than doing what capitalists want us to do, which is to work our butts off mindlessly for exploitative wages until we die or they can “replace” us with half-wit AI and witless robots.
It is no coincidence that the sexual hysterics of Puritanism emerged in the same nation, England, that also spawned modern capitalist industrialism.
Result: The little nation that has always bragged about its diehard commitment to “freedom” (Winston Churchill, etc.) contradicted that brag in the 20th century by arresting its greatest scientist (Alan Turing), its greatest actor (John Gielgud), and one of its greatest wits (Quentin Crisp), all for being queer. (Having long self-identified as gay, Crisp decided he was transgender just before he died in his 90s.)
How long will it be before the English and American authorities start coming for the great thinkers and creatives in OUR ranks? And how long before Democrats cease to take seriously politicians like Newsom, that con man who would sell his soul to the devil for a few electoral votes in 2028?
"Shows Why Democrats Must Avoid Abandoning Trans People"
I devoutly hope it shows that. I hope 20/20 hindsight shows that too . . .
It would help if the Democrats adopted a plank calling for 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. § 241, & 18 U.S.C. § 242 investigation -- a la reconciliation hearings -- of those engineering, funding, and carrying out the propaganda campaign and enacting the laws and policies against transgender people . . .
. . . and prosecution for the worst of them who dissemble or conceal in any way, their activities.
I'm not shocked at this. I'm in the states and the few Dump supporters I know, Trans Rights is a non-issue. The dems seriously annoy me when they lose elections and turn around and think it has something to do with supporting trans rights.
I agree entirely with what you have written about Starmer and his government's attitudes to trans people, and the reasoning behind it, but this is only one tiny piece of why Starmer has gone.
The cost of living and more austerity, especially on public services, when change was promised is the biggest reason. Many people blame migrants, many blame big business, all blame Starmer and his unusually autocratic cabinet.
There are many other reasons like an obscenely biased main stream media, awful decisions over Gaza, pensioners, disabled, welfare, protesters, the lack of a plan or a narrative and fawning over Trump etc which all contributed to this fall.
Trans people are generally supported by the public in this country. There are many noisy Terfs who push the agenda but it barely moves the needle in polls on the problems this country faces. Labour have indeed severely harmed trans people, especially trans youth, doing all the things you record here, as part of their shift ever further right in search of votes. Unless this resignation brings seismic change and quickly, Labour are toast. But it can't be attributed principally to their genocidal trans policy.
As a UK citizen who is a gay man and an active member of the Labour Party I have to agree that Starmer’s government has betrayed UK trans people in a shocking way.
However, the discriminatory treatment of trans people in the UK barely registers in party political terms. It should, but sadly it doesn’t. It has nothing like the high profile here that it does in the USA. As far as the UK voting public is concerned the issue has no relevance to Starmer’s failures in government. So I don’t think it’s appropriate to somehow compare Starmer’s fate to that which the Democrats may suffer for their lack of trans support in the USA. Because the issue is much more high profile in the States Democrats may well pay a price for their lack of backbone on trans issues but Starmer would be in the same position today even if he had done the right thing by trans citizens in the UK. When I knock on doors for Labour (and I’ve knocked thousands) the issues voters raise are the economy, cost of living, housing, health care etc, but never the government’s treatment of trans people.
I agree completely with Erin on this topic. Major erosion of our rights in the US can only come with some Democrat support. They scare me more than the enemy we know.
The UK is learning a hard lesson, and Hungary already has. Even here in the United States, many politicians who built their campaigns around attacking LGBTQ+ people have paid a political price at the ballot box.
We must continue pushing back against these bigoted and ignorant attacks. We must make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that our communities are not going away. No law, no executive order, and no political stunt can make LGBTQ+ people invisible.
The answer is solidarity, visibility, and action. We must stand together, speak out loudly and clearly, support one another, and most importantly, VOTE. Every election matters. Every vote matters.
Politicians who target our communities for political gain must be held accountable at the ballot box. Equality, dignity, and basic human rights are not negotiable, and we will not be silenced.
We can hope, I think that Burnham will be better.
At least Burnham shows more progressive thoughts and feelings (and has actually defended trans persons).
Burnham, a Catholic, carries a documented history as a vocal LGBTQ+ ally — one he's said cost him relationships inside his own family. He marched against Section 28 as a student in 1988, before he held any office worth protecting. From 2003 he voted almost wholesale for queer rights: repealing Section 28, civil partnerships, marriage equality, IVF access for lesbian couples. As mayor he hired a man the RAF had dumped for being gay, and last year formally apologized for how Greater Manchester Police treated queer people.
https://thistleandmoss.com/p/what-survives-the-morning-blood-on-the-ledger-linden-on-the-tongue#queerisms-where-are-we-today
It turns out, however, that he's rejected some of those positions with respect to trans people (per the article Erin linked to).
For the US it's of somewhat "academic" interest, but the reason academics are interested in something is for the underlying driving force. I suspect that this piece is right on target: just as the slogan ("trans rights are human rights") goes, waffling on trans rights is waffling on human rights, and soon one has neither.
https://jaynasheats.substack.com/p/allies-dont-dig-tunnels-under-the
Any public figure who waffles on trans rights....or any rights for that matter, is one that should not be in "service".
Exactly right! Thanks, Erin.
The constituency that really wants to vote for the Democrats (or Labour, or any other relatively left-leaning party) because of their support for other progressive policies but refuses to do so solely because of their stance on trans rights consists of ... J.K. Rowling, and that's pretty much it. A few TERFs here and there, maybe some transphobes estranged from their own family. A slice of the electorate too small to measure.
Anyone who votes for cruelty to trans people is also voting for cruelty to all queer people, to women, to immigrants, to the disabled, to non-Whites and non-Christians. And I think, either deep down or out in the open, they know this and are okay with it.
The other problem is that Reform UK, Brits version of MAGA, is gaining ground and rabidly anti-trans.
And the way a smart party opposes that is to quietly support trans people (or whatever other minority is under attack) while focusing on economic issues and demonstrating the fundamental unseriousness of the opposition.
Let's hope Labour under Burnham is a smart party.
There were many factors behind Starmer's resignation, including that he used nefarious methods to come into power. He was critiqued for moving Labour to the right and made life more difficult for many, not just trans people. The pattern of scapegoating groups with less political power is unfortunately common =/
This is one of your strongest posts, Erin.
The british people really did get a government with little to no difference from the conservatives before them; they had hoped to loose austerity, to end ridiculous anti social campaigning to distract people. And what they got was more of the same.
This is a very good breakdown of this aspect of it all. An important and wasily overlooked one for those not directly impacted.
I hope the anti trans positions from rhe UK aren't the only things that US politicians are taking note of. I hope they note that it hs utterly failed to being either party popularity.
A follow-up comment: Activists who attack the Catholic Church for its sluggishness on queer issues should remember how hostile Protestant cultures have been to gender innovators throughout history. England is rooted in the Protestant-Puritanical fanaticism of the 16th-17the centuries, with their hostility to the body, to pleasure, and to elegant forms of art and self-representation (e.g. fashion).
As Max Weber observed, these attitudes jibe with Protestantism’s most fateful offspring: capitalism. Capitalism couldn’t thrive if people were busy spending time trying to satisfy their inner yearnings rather than doing what capitalists want us to do, which is to work our butts off mindlessly for exploitative wages until we die or they can “replace” us with half-wit AI and witless robots.
It is no coincidence that the sexual hysterics of Puritanism emerged in the same nation, England, that also spawned modern capitalist industrialism.
Result: The little nation that has always bragged about its diehard commitment to “freedom” (Winston Churchill, etc.) contradicted that brag in the 20th century by arresting its greatest scientist (Alan Turing), its greatest actor (John Gielgud), and one of its greatest wits (Quentin Crisp), all for being queer. (Having long self-identified as gay, Crisp decided he was transgender just before he died in his 90s.)
How long will it be before the English and American authorities start coming for the great thinkers and creatives in OUR ranks? And how long before Democrats cease to take seriously politicians like Newsom, that con man who would sell his soul to the devil for a few electoral votes in 2028?
— Jennifer Keay Davidson
I hope the dems don’t cave, but when you even have Buttigieg making anti-trans comments, it’s hard to keep that hope.
"Shows Why Democrats Must Avoid Abandoning Trans People"
I devoutly hope it shows that. I hope 20/20 hindsight shows that too . . .
It would help if the Democrats adopted a plank calling for 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. § 241, & 18 U.S.C. § 242 investigation -- a la reconciliation hearings -- of those engineering, funding, and carrying out the propaganda campaign and enacting the laws and policies against transgender people . . .
. . . and prosecution for the worst of them who dissemble or conceal in any way, their activities.
Thank you, Erin.
Excellent piece, Erin! Well said!
I'm not shocked at this. I'm in the states and the few Dump supporters I know, Trans Rights is a non-issue. The dems seriously annoy me when they lose elections and turn around and think it has something to do with supporting trans rights.
I agree entirely with what you have written about Starmer and his government's attitudes to trans people, and the reasoning behind it, but this is only one tiny piece of why Starmer has gone.
The cost of living and more austerity, especially on public services, when change was promised is the biggest reason. Many people blame migrants, many blame big business, all blame Starmer and his unusually autocratic cabinet.
There are many other reasons like an obscenely biased main stream media, awful decisions over Gaza, pensioners, disabled, welfare, protesters, the lack of a plan or a narrative and fawning over Trump etc which all contributed to this fall.
Trans people are generally supported by the public in this country. There are many noisy Terfs who push the agenda but it barely moves the needle in polls on the problems this country faces. Labour have indeed severely harmed trans people, especially trans youth, doing all the things you record here, as part of their shift ever further right in search of votes. Unless this resignation brings seismic change and quickly, Labour are toast. But it can't be attributed principally to their genocidal trans policy.
As a UK citizen who is a gay man and an active member of the Labour Party I have to agree that Starmer’s government has betrayed UK trans people in a shocking way.
However, the discriminatory treatment of trans people in the UK barely registers in party political terms. It should, but sadly it doesn’t. It has nothing like the high profile here that it does in the USA. As far as the UK voting public is concerned the issue has no relevance to Starmer’s failures in government. So I don’t think it’s appropriate to somehow compare Starmer’s fate to that which the Democrats may suffer for their lack of trans support in the USA. Because the issue is much more high profile in the States Democrats may well pay a price for their lack of backbone on trans issues but Starmer would be in the same position today even if he had done the right thing by trans citizens in the UK. When I knock on doors for Labour (and I’ve knocked thousands) the issues voters raise are the economy, cost of living, housing, health care etc, but never the government’s treatment of trans people.
Sad, but true.
I agree completely with Erin on this topic. Major erosion of our rights in the US can only come with some Democrat support. They scare me more than the enemy we know.
The UK is learning a hard lesson, and Hungary already has. Even here in the United States, many politicians who built their campaigns around attacking LGBTQ+ people have paid a political price at the ballot box.
We must continue pushing back against these bigoted and ignorant attacks. We must make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that our communities are not going away. No law, no executive order, and no political stunt can make LGBTQ+ people invisible.
The answer is solidarity, visibility, and action. We must stand together, speak out loudly and clearly, support one another, and most importantly, VOTE. Every election matters. Every vote matters.
Politicians who target our communities for political gain must be held accountable at the ballot box. Equality, dignity, and basic human rights are not negotiable, and we will not be silenced.